At no point did I say the science was wrong. It isn't. If anything, the projections are too rosy.
There are types of speech that are legitimately harmful, and discussing how to protect people from its harms is part of being in a functioning society.
Programmers complain about code, but that doesn't make the results wrong. I guess I could explain why the models aren't can't be exactly predictive, but nobody wants a deep dive on epistemology.
But the deeper problem is this isn't a great use of anyone's time:
"You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
Your not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.
Your skepticism is based on some combination of fear and pride, not reason, but it's ok. I'm not mad at you. I'm sure you're doing your best.
At no point did I say the science was wrong. It isn't. If anything, the projections are too rosy.
There are types of speech that are legitimately harmful, and discussing how to protect people from its harms is part of being in a functioning society. Programmers complain about code, but that doesn't make the results wrong. I guess I could explain why the models aren't can't be exactly predictive, but nobody wants a deep dive on epistemology. But the deeper problem is this isn't a great use of anyone's time: "You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
Your not understanding something doesn't make it wrong. Your skepticism is based on some combination of fear and pride, not reason, but it's ok. I'm not mad at you. I'm sure you're doing your best.